It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
. . . letting the body die on Friday only to reclaim it on Sunday and fly it to Heaven to be crowned on a throne, IS NOT A SACRIFICE – NOR IS IT MEANINGFUL.
That's the idea, to have as representative, someone who did not sin, where God likes us better than He would otherwise because when he thinks of humans of Earth, He is thinking of good people since the one example sitting before Him who He is looking at is a good example, being one of us who did not sin.
How can Jesus represent humanity if he did not sin when the Bible clearly states that all men are sinners who have fallen short?
Had Jesus been human and actually given up his life for some cause there would have been meaning and it would have been a sacrifice, but if the story is taken as it is in the Gospels than he was God and only gave up his mortal body for a few days. In many forms of Christianity the Resurrection is considered just as important as the crucifixion, yet it actually makes the story LESS meaningful.
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
If you're not going to be bother explaining anything than the only real reason you could have posted, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is to attempt to malign me by making a snap-judgment calling me closed-minded.
reply to post by jmdewey60
But none of that answers my questions. How can Jesus represent humanity if he did not sin when the Bible clearly states that all men are sinners who have fallen short? It seems to me that if God wanted a representative he would have chosen a sinner to redeem and indeed that story seems to have played out with the Apostle Paul NOT with Jesus (interestingly Paul refers to a more nebulous and mystical Jesus, rather than a physical one completing miracles).
Had Jesus been human and actually given up his life for some cause there would have been meaning and it would have been a sacrifice, but if the story is taken as it is in the Gospels than he was God and only gave up his mortal body for a few days. In many forms of Christianity the Resurrection is considered just as important as the crucifixion, yet it actually makes the story LESS meaningful.
So apparently Jesus dying on the cross is meant to offer salvation from sin. Jesus is said to have died for all of our sins, bearing them on the cross as he died. Jesus is the ultimate blood sacrifice. In the Old Testament the Israelites had to kill an animal, transferring their sin into it before killing it in a very specific and ritualistic way, thus appeasing God. Jesus was meant to be a sacrificial lamb, taking the sins of the whole world. The problems with this idea are many but the first and most obvious is that Christians can still sin. Even after accepting Christianity people can still choose to commit horrible deeds, just look at the Catholic church's history. So if Christians are still capable of sinning than how is Jesus saving them from sin? There are those who ascribe to a “once saved, always saved” version of the theology, where anyone who accepts Christ is saved no matter what horrible deeds they commit but this, of course, means that immoral monsters like Hitler could be in Heaven, while relatively good moral people who just happened to not be Christians would end up in Hell. The answer also can't be that Jesus merely offers help in fighting the temptation to sin, because if Jesus is involved than the temptation can't possibly win, Jesus is all powerful, he can't exactly FAIL to defend you from sin? The argument could be made that Jesus saves people from their sins up until the moment they BECOME a Christian, and then after that moment they are responsible for their own sins BUT they would still be in danger of Hell both before and after accepting Salvation, rendering it pointless.
Seriously is anything anybody could say going to change your opinion?
Looking for a few flags and stars is my assesment
The "cause" is that everyone should have the same willingness to die for the truth and for the fight against evil in the world.
The thing is, we could not send anyone if we wanted to, but God can, and He knew what sort of person Jesus was, since they were in communication with each other all the while.
and ready to enter into the presence of God without being immediately destroyed as an evil thing.
So trying to challenge people's beliefs by asking them to give a straight answer is trolling?
Seems that way to me too. I blame it on the cults who are big on recruiting, so their message gets the bullhorn while normal Christianity gets kicked aside.
But Christians never claim that's the cause. Most versions I've heard claim that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, as a blood sacrifice. Jesus is personified as a sacrificial lamb offered to God on our behalf to spare us God's wrath. Sure Jesus did his fair share to shame and malign the corrupt religious establishment of his day but if the message of the story was about being willing to fight evil and lay down your life than it seems to have been muddled.
The word "monotheism" was not coined until 1600 AD.
Was Jesus God though? Because if he was God than they were each other, no need for communication as they would be one being.
I concluded recently that what was difficult for him was to restrain himself from engaging in theological and political arguments with those who sought to place him on trial and execute him. For example, that is what Paul probably would have done in the same circumstances.
I've always been interested in the scene in Gethsemane for instance, because it seems to show a very very human Jesus, who is afraid of the pain of the coming crucifixion and wants out of it if God is willing to offer him a way out.
That was not the same person as who we normally think of as God, the Father of Jesus. He seems to have been a local deity type person in charge of an important territory which later was specified as the land of Canaan.
If the presence of God destroys evil things immediately than why is he physically present after Adam and Eve commit original sin? They don't die from God being present in the garden.
The idea that Jesus saves people from Hell suffers from a similar problem as the last one. In fact Hell is the only reason why most relatively minor sins are a big problem. According to Revelations liars and cowards will be put in Hell, as well as anyone who doesn't believe in the Christian God. There are tons of things that the Bible claims are sins which are not a big problem in reality, such as working on the Sabbath (Saturday), lying and eating shellfish. Lumping such trivialities in with murder is absurd to those of us with basic moral understanding and empathy and the idea of throwing someone into a Lake of Fire for, well, any reason at all, makes God out to be a horrific monster.
So if Jesus saved humanity from Hell than no human beings would go to Hell. Yet according to the Bible the majority of human beings DO end up in the Lake of Fire after being judged by God. So this would mean that Jesus' plan to save humanity failed, thus making him imperfect and not all powerful. Christians might argue that FREE WILL will save their God from impotence here (and lot's of other places they like to trump up free will) but that simply isn't the case. Even if God gives us free will the will of an all-powerful God still trumps it, and a perfect being CANNOT LOGICALLY FAIL. Thus if even one soul ends up in Hell God is shown to be imperfect.